T.o.b.y

Native speaker out of practice, to be precise actually bilingual German / English. Don't get to use my literal "mother tongue" much and am very happy to at least write in it here (may be one of the reasons why I am so prolific at the moment - that and serious insomnia :-)

I joined right after re-reading The Sign of Four and I really wanted to "be" Toby, the old dog who tries so hard to find the right track for Holmes and Watson, messes up and leads them not to what they were looking for but to an epic laugh. However, "Toby" was already taken, so I decided I'd just turn it into an acronym à la H.O.U.N.D, only less sinister. Haven't figured out what it's supposed to stand for. Open to suggestions...

Have just read "The Norwood Builder" for the first time. That could go into my favorites collection straight away and I would be very surprised if it's never used on the show. The villain there is called "a rat" by Holmes. Wasn't there something about a rat in the cryptic clues Moffat gave out?

"Take my hand" - "okay, now people will really talk" In the stories, our two friends actually hold hands quite a lot when the situation calls for it, especially in "The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton". There, we have Holmes using this simple device to navigate Watson through Milverton's house in the dark, reassure him that everything is under control and hold him back from interfering when Milverton is shot.

I agree that Sherlock really is afraid on occasion during the second series (and during the pool scene in The Great Game, too). The thing is, for the ending of series 2 to work as a story, we, the audience, have to believe that Sherlock is capable of both love and fear. Only then will the rooftop scene be heroic and memorable. Only then will it even make sense. If Sherlock loved nobody, Moriarty couldn't use hostages against him. If he wasn't capable of being afraid, he could not be brave.

Carol, have you said anywhere why you think they got Irene wrong? How would you have written her?

Thank you. You put that really well. I am re-reading the old stories in my free time these days and now that I'm not sidetracked any more by the suspense of the cases, I pay a lot more attention to what goes on between the characters. And the more I read, the more I am ready to agree with you that, in the books at least, it is, in fact, a love story. Even if I make allowances for cultural differences between then and now, I can't come to any other conclusion. I'm not saying there's a sexual relationship implied anywhere in the source (although if anybody wants to fantasize about that, it offers plenty of openings). But the way Watson writes about Holmes - well, it's no wonder the reader falls head over heals for him (or at least I did). Aside from eulogizing Holmes' brilliance and upright moral principles (yes, in the original he has those!), Watson gives us plenty of physical descriptions: Holmes' facial features and many different expressions, the way his arm feels through his shirt, when and how hands were held in critical situations, how close Holmes' face comes when he whispers something while they're hiding somewhere... It goes on and on. And it feels real, whereas Watson writing about Mary sounds like it was copied out of some standard Victorian romance. Holmes, on the other hand, comments on Watson incessantly and often quite affectionately. After Holmes returns from being supposed dead, he lays out a lot of money to enable Watson to sell his practice and move back into the Baker St. apartment - this time, saving money on the rent cannot have been the reason, obviously. In the late 1800s, very few people would have asked if these two men were gay. Hardly anybody knew what that meant, anyways. So if Doyle wanted to express love, he did not have to take care it wouldn't be misunderstood as sex. Now, more than a century later, we can all imagine sex without love but not love without sex. So it must be really, really hard to write Sherlock and John. And what makes it even harder is that nowadays you have to give a reason for leaving the sex out of it, because if you try there will always be somebody ready to accuse you of being homophobic. You could, I guess, dispense with the love altogether. They could just be colleagues and the detective bit would still work. I am so glad Moffat and Gatiss did not choose that option.

About Mary dying: I haven't even met her yet, but by this time my faith in the show is so strong that I am sure I'll like her too well to want her to die on it. Besides, we've already seen John at Sherlock's grave site - if they have to do something like that for Mary it will be tragic overkill. In the days of Arthur Conan Doyle, being widowed at Watson's age or sooner was pretty common. Nowadays, relationships end differently. I think the modern answer to the widower is the divorced spouse. So if they ever need to "get rid of" Mary (because the actress has other commitments or because they think they need it for the plot or whatever reason), they will probably have her divorce John and walk out. P.S.: This has nothing to do with this topic, but I edit my posts a lot because of spelling mistakes. I do not live in an English-speaking country and my English is somewhat rusty from lack of use. So if anybody feels like correcting me in that department, go ahead, I'd be grateful...

Favorite character? What a difficult question! Sherlock, if I have to decide. Because... well, because he's Sherlock. But I agree with all those people who have pointed out that he only works so well as a character because of Watson with his down-to-earth manner and dry humor. This is the first TV show I've ever seen where A: I like every single character, even very minor ones (the casting is GREAT!) and B: I like the hero better than the villain, even though the villain is awesome It's also the first literary adaption I've come across that actually improves on the source material and manages to tell it's own story without being unfaithful to the original. No wonder I got a little obsessed...

I've been reading "The Empty House" lately and noticed how great everything goes for Holmes. He didn't have to go over the cliff, Moriarty died, he evaded Moriarty's allies without a scratch. Then he had some fun traveling and when that got boring he pottered back to England, sent Mrs Hudson into "violent hysterics" that he could later make funny comments on and hunted out his friend, who, very conveniently, has been widowed in the meantime and is just in the right mood to move straight back into Baker St and be at Holmes' every beck and call once more. This friend, whom he never even wrote to and does not seem to have missed overly much while his life was so exiting, faints with joy when Holmes reveals himself after having played yet another trick on him by disguising as an old bibliophile. Then they finish off the last of Moriarty's gang together (and it's a good thing Holmes didn't try that on his own because Watson has to knock Moran out or he would have throttled Holmes). Holmes admits that his reappearance was "unnecessarily dramatic" and claims "I had no idea you would be so affected". The first statement I believe to be utterly true, the second is surely a lie. He staged that scene to get the most out of Watson's reaction and pamper his own ego. And did that ever work! Watson writes about this moment later in such gushing tones that this particular passage should be censored out of all copies of the books sold to fan-fiction prone teenagers. Anyway, what I'm getting at is that The Reunion in the original reads more like a day-dream of a very vain man than something that really happened. I can easily imagine "our" Sherlock building a similar castle in the air. And, to get back to the topic of this thread, I would really like to see how that castle stands the test of reality in the forms of John Watson as played by Martin Freeman with a very much alive Mary Morstan at his side.

In that case, I hope it was at least Mycroft who offered assistance and not Sherlock who had to plead for it. And Mycroft might have thrown in one or two apologies while he was speaking to his brother. Because I do believe he sold part of Sherlock's story to Moriarty. If nothing he told him was true, then why did John think it was? He says about Kitty "she has really done her homework" and claims that she knows stuff only someone close to Sherlock would know. Is John so stupid that he believes anything Kitty publishes is necessarily the truth? Because if not, he must be able to verify at least some of her statements or he would not have made that comment.

If it's only the immediate threat of Moriarty's network, then you are of course right. I was thinking more along the lines of the classic (super)hero logic: Stay away from me, my life is dangerous, you'll get hurt too and have no special powers to defend yourself with, I am so alone but won't show it because I don't want people I love being hurt, bla, bla, bla. It's an impression I got watching the episode and it probably stems more from my own reaction to Reichenbach than anything else. Those 90 min always leave me feeling extremely soppy. Of course I hope that Sherlock has not become quite so heroic yet and never will. I want him to come back as (almost) the same egocentric, insensitive, arrogant, emotional virgin he went. He's very welcome to grow and learn but, as he himself would say: "don't be boring".

I think Watson's shot through the window while standing in the house opposite his victim in A Study in Pink smacks of Moran's attempt to kill Holmes in "The Empty House". And while we're at it, doesn't Moran seem a bit like Watson's evil counterpart just like Moriarty is Holmes'?

This obviously has nothing to do with birds, changing the subject again, sorry. You know who Holmes and Watson (in the original stories) remind me of a lot? Eugene Wrayburn and Mortimer Lightwood in Dickens' "Our Mutual Friend". Especially the way Holmes talks (to Watson), his humor, his irony, his assumed lack of emotional depth, even his physicality is very reminiscent of Eugene. And the way in which, in the TV version, John acts as Sherlock's moral anchor while Sherlock seems pretty uncertain of his own ethics is very Mortimer-like. The main difference between the two friendships is, that in Dickens it is actually Eugene who finds love and gets married while Mortimer is left to a rather lonely life as a permanent bachelor after having helped with bringing the marriage about.

There's been a lot of commentary on John's facial hair as seen in the BBC teaser. In the stories, Watson is described as having a "modest mustache". In "His Last Bow", Watson comments on Holmes having grown a "horrible goatee". Holmes quickly assures him that it was only part of a disguise and will soon become no more than "a dreadful memory". Lets hope that John's beard goes the same way...

Would he not intend to? Hmm... If I remember correctly, in "The Blind Banker" it was never quite clear whether Sherlock disturbed John's date because of mere insensitivity or whether there was something more deliberate going on. Yes, first and foremost he wanted to investigate that circus, but he could have done so on his own unobserved. I do have this feeling that, while Sherlock certainly does not want him to be his boy-friend, he also doesn't relish Watson going out with anyone else. John's other girl-friends didn't last long. Of course, John is not the most expert person out there when it comes to relationships / women, so that might be mostly his own fault, but I'm pretty convinced that the time during Sherlock's absence is his best chance of finding something permanent.

This is a very good question. You are right, at the time when he says that he is putting on one of his acts to manipulate John's actions (and, as usual, it's working like a dream... good old Watson, you're such a sucker!). But I think he must have really believed for a long time that he was best off and safest alone. At least that's how he seems to have lived his life. Of course, he could have been friendless because of his difficult personality. Maybe it's a combination of both: He might have had a very hard time with other kids when he was young and so came to associate human interaction with being hurt. Rather than trying to find friends he then trained himself to not need them. I don't think he's really supposed to be autistic, though. I like to believe in "the great heart behind the great brain". I wonder whether, at the end of Reichenbach Fall, he decided to go back to being alone because he found that having friends made him too vulnerable. After all, Moriarty used them to pressure him. There might also be an element of the classic "hero pushes friends away to keep them out of the danger he's habitually involved in" in this. If my last paragraph were true, Sherlock would have run both from his enemies and his friends. In that case the next big question would be: Why does he come back?

As I said, reason has nothing to do with it: While I would hate to see Sherlock depending on somebody who is stronger than him, like Mycroft, I was really happy to see him going to Molly for help. As for his relying on John, well, that's sort of what John is for, right? I certainly don't want Sherlock to be infallible and 100% independent of other people (although I'm sure that's what he would want). I just have a problem with Mycroft looming over him.

After having just read that story for the - um - I don't know how many'th time, I really, really want a close adaptation of The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton. Because: - He's the only villain from the original stories that can top Moriarty. Holmes is powerless against him! - Holmes gets engaged to a girl (under an alias) just to gather information and break into Milverton's house - A woman gets to finish Milverton off - There are a lot of interesting choices for Holmes and Watson involved concerning ethics and morals and putting personal concerns behind those of other people - Holmes and Watson run the risk of landing in jail - that could be very funny if you took it beyond a mere possibility Now, if we take into consideration that Milverton specializes in blackmailing women and ruining their relationships and combine this with the appearance of Mary Morstan and her wedding to John Watson plus the fact that the actress has hinted at her character having "secrets", there could be some really good storytelling ahead.

She is a little like him, isn't she? I think in some interview Moffat or Gatiss said, when asked if she and Sherlock would become a couple: "Two sociopaths together? Doesn't sound like a good idea". I feel for Molly. She's a bit like me or I'm a bit like her or whatever. I love her small voiced "okay" when Sherlock has said or done something outrageously insulting. But I definitely do not want to see her and Sherlock as a couple. Sherlock should never, ever have a girlfriend or any kind of permanent romantic attachment, that would be completely out of character. And dear Molly, I know you are fictitious and can't hear me, but please get over him. You deserve so much better. He'll always be your friend and you do count and that is the best you can get from Sherlock Holmes. P.S.: Not for one second do I believe she put a mankini in that present. They were just making a joke. And a pretty stupid one, too.

Dumb expression, couldn't find any better. I meant the bits of writing that show up on screen when Sherlock notices things about people and makes his deductions. If you buy the DVD in Germany, you can set the audio to "English", but the German words remain. That's why I want mine to come from the UK.

Did you also get the impression from the teaser trailer that Sherlock might show up to ruin John's marriage proposal?

On the contrary; we're his biggest fans! We derserve to know every little detail about him Well, whatever we deserve or not, we won't ever find out, I think. Personally, I got the impression from the way he responded to Irene that Sherlock was more or less inexperienced in sexual matters. Like being drugged and beaten is all the thrills he will ever get in that department. At least he seemed to enjoy it... If there was some kind of prior experience, it can't have been that great. I don't believe he is heroically keeping himself from some exquisite enjoyment just to protect his intellectual faculties. If that were the case, he would have stayed away from drugs (I've heard they can do a lot more brain damage than sex). He probably has intentionally starved his emotional side though, rather than it's being underdeveloped. Who knows what horrible experiences he has had to come to believe that "alone protects me".

No, they really can not. Girls, on the other hand, can hug, hold hands and kiss and no eyebrow is ever raised. What a strange world it is. On the one hand: I would appreciate a good gay romance on mainstream TV. On the other hand: Between Sherlock Holmes and John Watson? God no! That would simplify their unique whatevertheyhave to something commonplace and, as Sherlock himself would say, boring. Because there are romances enough in fiction, millions, gazillions. But there are very few stories where a friendship is at the emotional center. And friendships are at least just as meaningful as romances. At least they tend to last longer. They can also be just as complicated as love affairs, involve as many layers and ambiguities and cause actual heartache when they go wrong. The problem with the way most people nowadays perceive relationships (especially between two guys) is that there is too much emphasis on sex and too little on anything else. Like Irene, most people seem to see sex as the only way of being close. (And before anyone starts to believe I have anything against sex: nope, nothing whatsoever. But it gets a little too much attention in fiction and there are so many other ways in which people can love one another.)

Mrs. Hudson seems to be a character they went pretty far away from the canon with (as far as I can tell; haven't read every story). I've never noticed as close a connection between her and Sherlock in the books as there is on the show. On the contrary, in "The Dying Detective", Watson says she's afraid of Holmes and that she overprices his rent. I love the modern Mrs. Hudson! It's so lovely to see Sherlock behaving like a normal human being around her, almost as if she were his mother. He even hugs and kisses her. I hope the actress stays on for as long as the series continues and if she ever has to leave I hope they don't make the mistake of re-casting the role. She's a very pleasant indicator that Sherlock is not misogynistic (something the original character has been charged with) and the scene where he rescues her from the Americans is a nice twist on classic chivalry: Why should the hero always save young, attractive women?